Letters to the Editor: Sunday, January 26, 2014

To the editor,Well it finally happened. I finally had to answer the questions in the doctor's office that are now required with the Affordable Care Act.Can someone please tell me what the following questions have to do with getting a gall bladder removed?

1. Do you own any guns?

2. Do you keep them locked up?

3. What do you heat your home with?

4. Do you wear a seat belt when you drive?

There were a couple of others that were just as ridiculous in that setting that I have forgotten.

I asked the doctor about those questions, and he apologized and said if he did not ask then they would not get paid by the Affordable Care Act.So, I ask again, what do those questions have to do with health care? Let me answer that for you. All of this information goes into a NATIONAL database.

Is there anyone out there that does not think the guns questions are not related to future gun-control efforts? Is there anyone out there that does not think the EPA is interested in how those of us in the country heat our homes so they can eventually regulate us out of the heating system of OUR choice and into the system of THEIR choice?

What happens if we refuse to answer those questions? Will our health care provider get ripped off and not get paid, or get fined?

The bottom line is do you really want the federal government to know EVERYTHING about your life?

One more thing, the other day President Obama told us we have nothing to worry about with the NSA data gathering. After all, those people are fellow Americans, they are our friends and neighbors.Unfortunately the president has either forgotten, chosen to ignore, or is ignorant of lessons of history. Who was it in Nazi Germany who turned in the Jews to the SS? It was their friends and neighbors. Who was it that turned in people to the Communist Party in Russia? It was their friends and neighbors. In Communist China who reported the underground churches under Mao? It was their friends and neighbors.

I am sorry, Mr. President; your phrase about our friends and neighbors was not enough to make me think that my government collecting all of that information is good for me. I teach history. I know better.

This resolution was brought up on Tuesday, Jan. 7, in the Ways and Means Committee, and would have been passed then except for the protest of Commissioner Chris Wittenbach who insisted upon allowing public comment on the issue. The only public comment opportunity available was at the opening of the County Commission meeting on Jan. 8, which was limited to three minutes per speaker. To my knowledge, there was no other opportunity for public comment, nor was there any announcement in the Telegram that the measure was coming up for a vote.

Three people spoke against passage of the resolution. They addressed concerns for citizens' private property rights, taxpayer funding of Complete Streets projects, possible loss of local control over roadways and local decision-making, and social engineering efforts promoted by the Complete Streets Initiative. This was the total extent of "public comment" on the resolution. Had not Commissioner Wittenbach informed his constituents of the impending vote, there would not have been any opposition to this resolution.

Commissioner Tillotson was absent, Commissioners Wittenbach and Branch voted against the resolution, and all other commissioners voted in favor of it because, as Commissioner Smith stated, though he previously staunchly opposed the resolution, he "believes economic development is a higher priority." Do you believe economic development is a higher priority than your property rights; or the obligation our commissioners have to keep the public apprised of their proposed actions that will affect your pocketbook and, ultimately, your daily life; or the fact that the Complete Streets Initiative is part of the 1992 United Nations Agenda for the 21st Century (a.k.a. Agenda 21) which Presidents Bush I and II, Clinton, and Obama have been actively promoting through Executive Orders and federal bureaucracies, and states, including Michigan, are enforcing through legislative and bureaucratic action?

No piece of legislation announces that it is adopting Agenda 21 policies, but a study of the program reveals that its goals include promoting bicycle and non-motorized transportation options that will crowd out convenient motorized vehicle access to roadways, ultimately making mass transit more convenient than private vehicle use and reducing road maintenance in rural areas to encourage people to move into urban areas. Other aspects of Complete Streets include public health agencies promoting activities that require more walking on the part of students or employees by forcing them to walk some distance to school or work once they get off their mass transit system, and promote government grant-funded downtown development of upper-level apartments to encourage more urban living. Granted that none of these things sounds bad. In fact, they may appeal to many people, which is fine so long as they remain voluntary. But on-going implementation of Agenda 21 programs nation- and world-wide ultimately is intended to become mandatory, allowing government to monitor and control all aspects of daily life. (You may verify this information by looking up "Agenda 21" or "Complete Streets" on the web sites of Eagle Forum, Heritage Foundation, United Nations, American Policy Center, or Democrats Against UN Agenda 21.)

Adoption of the "Comprehensive Transportation System" resolution appears to be innocuous. In truth, our commissioners have allowed the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. What on the surface appear to be enhancements to our local communities, in the long term will have the very dangerous potential of transforming the way we all will live in the future.

It is very important for all of us to be aware of what our government is doing at all levels. We need to become informed and to talk with our elected representatives about our concerns. We need to defend our constitutional rights as citizens; and insist that our county commissioners understand the long-term implications of all proposals and retain local control over the growth and development of Lenawee County, and that they keep their constituents informed of what they are doing and listen to all of their constituents, not just a favored few. They should always remember that their duty is to represent the interests and well-being of all their neighbors in Lenawee County.

Kathy KlumppFranklin Township

Editor's note: A shortened version of this letter was printed to meet the Telegram's 400-word limit.